Links to documents follow.
Not so much fanfare now, since leaks pretty much revealed earlier that it’s alarmism on steroids. The always dependably worrisome Seth Borenstein, AP’s science reporter, sums up the alarmism quite well with this tweet:
IPCC report: Warming harms dialed up to new level as world in for wild climate ride, 'we're sitting ducks'; http://t.co/KRIgBFqRGT
— @borenbears (@borenbears) March 31, 2014
I note Dr. Richard Tol’s name is not on it, as he said it was too alarmist.
The Working Group II contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report considers the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, the observed impacts and future risks of climate change, and the potential for and limits to adaptation. The chapters of the report assess risks and opportunities for societies, economies, and ecosystems around the world.
=============================================================
Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers *
Observed Changes in the Climate System
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0–700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.
Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia
(high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification.
Drivers of Climate Change
Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes
Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).
Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
Future Global and Regional Climate Change
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.
Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.
The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.
It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.
Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all RCP scenarios, the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971 to 2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.
Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.
* Headline statements are the overarching highlighted conclusions of the approved Summary for Policymakers which, taken together, provide a concise narrative. The four statements in boxes here are those summarizing the assessment in the Summary for Policymakers, sections B-E.
=============================================================
The Summary for Policymakers is available here and the unedited accepted Final Draft Report is available here.
IPCC Drafting Authors – USA ( 16 )
Christopher B. Field (USA),
The world is staring down the barrel of climate change that is faster than at any time in the last 65 million years, says climate expert Chris Field. He will speak on the topic.
Michael D. Mastrandrea (USA),
Hans – Martin Füssel & Michael D. Mastrandrea, Integrated Assessment Modeling, in CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AND POLICY 150, 150 – 61 (Stephen H. Schneider et al. eds., 2010).
Selected presentations : “’Dangerous’ Climate Change,” American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, December, 2003.
Katharine J. Mach (USA),
Earth Day 2014 – confirmed speakers, Katharine Mach, Carnegie Institution, Co-Director of Science, IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit.
Douglas J. Arent (USA), Arent is on the Advisory Board of E+Co, a public-purpose investment company that supports sustainable development across the globe. He also serves on the Chancellor’s Committee on Energy, Environment, and Sustainability Carbon Neutrality Group at the University of Colorado. Arent was the chair of the Quantitative Work Group in support of the Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Council of the Western Governors’ Association.
Virginia R. Burkett (USA),
Virginia R. Burkett is Chief of the Forest Ecology Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Research Center at Lafayette Louisiana.
The Green Schools Alliance – Dr. Virginia Burkett, member of the IPCC and USGS climatologist, is a forum leader on our website.
Kirstin Dow (USA),
Kirstin Dow is a Professor of Geography at the University of South Carolina.
Environmental Stewardship Award, School of the Environment, University of South Carolina. 2001.
David B. Lobell (USA),
Associate Professor – Department of Environmental Earth System Science.
Another Chapter 7 lead author is David Lobell. While he and Challinor were working closely together on the IPCC report, Challinor decided that a paper written by Lobell also merited publication in the journal he was guest-editing.
Bruce A. McCarl (USA),
University Distinguished Professor and Regents Professor of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University. Last year ( 2007 ) , McCarl, his fellow IPCC whizzes, and Gore shared a Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
Michael Oppenheimer (USA),
a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, was also a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense. Michael Oppenheimer was the holder of the “Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies” at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Jonathan T. Overpeck (USA),
“WE KNOW THE EARTH IS WARMING. WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE CAUSING IT. ARIZONA IS GROUND ZERO FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.”
Jonathan Overpeck, PhD, Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist and co-director, Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona.
The Sierra Club supports cleaning up air pollution from the Navajo Generating Station and ultimately transitioning away from coal to clean, renewable energy as a future source of power and economic opportunity for the region.
For more information, contact Andy Bessler with theSierra Club in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Michael J. Prather (USA),
Department of Earth System Science University of California, Irvine, CA.
The sustained, collective work of the IPCC since 1988 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Congrats to all my colleagues who worked on these assessment reports, and helped save the planet, one chapter at a time.
Roger S. Pulwarty (USA),
Physical Scientist and Director, National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), Physical Sciences Division and OAR/Climate Program Office.
Joanne Rider, York University’s Chief Spokesman, has since informed that this ad “is no longer running” – and that related material describing Pulwarty as a Nobel laureate has been changed.
Kirk R. Smith (USA),
Professor of Global Environmental Health, Director of the Global Health and Environment Program, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
He participated along with many other scientists in the IPCC’s 3rd and 4th assessments and thus shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
Research interests – Prof. Smith’s research focuses on environmental and health issues in developing countries, particularly those related to health-damaging and climate-changing air pollution from household energy use.
Petra Tschakert (USA),
Associate Professor of Geography and the Institutes of Energy and the Environment, Pennsylvania State University.
Tschakert works at the intersection of political ecology, climate change adaptation, social – ecological resilience, environmental justice, livelihood security, and participatory action research and learning within a development context.
Thomas J. Wilbanks (USA),
Environmental Sciences Division – Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
See Exhibit C – EarthJustice, On behalf of intervenors EarthReports, Inc. (dba Patuxent Riverkeeper); Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.; Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Sierra Club; and Stewards of the Lower
Susquehanna, Inc. (collectively, “Intervenors”), we respectfully submit additional information relevant to Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP’s application to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) facility and associated infrastructure being proposed under Docket No. CP-13-113.
Gary W. Yohe (USA)
The significance of IPCC errors has been greatly exaggerated by many sensationalist accounts, but that is no reason to avoid implementing procedures to make the assessment process even better.
Signed by: Gary W. Yohe, Wesleyan University and Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. March 10, 2010.
The BBC article starts with a photo of a pagoda in West Lake, Hangzhou, China (without a caption to explain that the photo does not show rising waters dues to global warming).
NY Times is already all-in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/science/earth/panels-warning-on-climate-risk-worst-is-yet-to-come.html?hp&_r=0
Took them less than half a day. And among the comments already are gem quotes like this from Susan Anderson of Boston:
Have some curiosity. It takes real effort to stay blind and deaf. Every credible scientific agency in the world is trying everything they can to communicate and help us face the truth; they’re not hard to find. Don’t let WattsUpWithThat or other notable politicized secondary sources lead you away from the facts. Fake skeptics yelling about persecution are clever about creating smokescreens, but less clever about the rank foolishness of believing in those smokescreens.
Ugh.
Magma says:
March 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm
My, what fast readers commenters here are. I’d be impressed, if I actually thought many of you had bothered read a single page…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Have you?
For example, could you explain Figure RC-1 to me?
I’d like to really understand this. I have questions like:
Why do the model projections shown only start in the late 2000’s?
Is that because if they show them starting any earlier it becomes so painfully obvious that they diverge from observations and aren’t worth spit?
Why to the observations shown exclude satellite data?
Isn’t satellite data the most accurate data we have? Billions of dollars of satellites put in orbit for this very purpose and we’re ignoring them, because why?
Is it because their observations would embarrass the climate modelers even more?
And if the climate models are so completely useless that these kinds of deceptions need to be employed in order to hide their failures, does that not imply that the science they are based on is also suspect?
When you’re done answering those, I’m guessing that I will have by then read a few more pages and will have still more embarrassing questions.
If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie. They were faced with owning up to the facts that they got is spectacularly wrong or to ramp up the alarmism just one more time. They chose the latter when even their own flawed science does not support the message. As the world continues to fail to warm or even cool, this episode will mark their final shrill death call.
Coordinating lead author Saleemul Huq
was employed as Director (SCIENTIST) at GREENPEACE LIMITED from 14 November 2006 to 05 December 2009
resigned
Company address: GREENPEACE LIMITED
GREENPEACE HOUSE, CANONBURY VILLAS, LONDON, N1 2PN
A report on the post doc careers, of US PhD Physics graduates, was published, as I recall, in Physics Today, a free publication of the American Institute of Physics.
According to that study, 30% of USA Physics PhDs, got permanent jobs in Physics based on their specialty, presumably their thesis subject. 5% were able to get only temporary work, in their field, before having to change their careers.
65% of all USA Physics PhDs, never get a permanent job in their field of expertise, and are doomed to spend their careers, as post-doc fellows at some institution or other, and scramble for grant money, to pay for their upkeep.
I’m guessing, they did their thesis on something nobody else thought of doing, and then discovered nobody else had any interest in that, or wanted to hire them into industry, to work on that.
Industry hires people who know how to make a profitable product that they can sell to willing buyers.
So how many of these unemployable Physicists, go into climate research, where you won’t know your results, till you are ready to retire on your possibly taxpayer funded gravy train ??
When I read Michael D’s list (above), of contributing authors it awakened my awareness of just how many, it must be many thousands of people who are sharing a part of the bottomless finance pit that funds the warmist movement. All carried away by the inertia of the IPCC propaganda.
As someone (?above) mentioned – who would dare, whatever they really thought, to go back against the tide, against the juggernaut, bite the hand that feeds, risk ostracisation, risk their livelihood?
All propping up a ‘house of cards’, built on sand instead of valid science, a political base without a doubt. They have the gall to charge the questioners (us), as politically motivated and industrially financed.
“Safe” in the knowledge that they have immense support and media promotion of their fiction that has no difficulty in brainwashing the public.
The more I read, the more comfortable I am that I am batting (unfunded), for the side of genuine science, truth and justice.
“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”
Why do bureaucracies become more certain with something over time, without reason? Just because things have warmed doesn’t mean humans are the main cause, that is what they used to think 20 years ago, not they are nearly certain is it humans that are dominant.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Uncertainty is a vacuum and some bureaucrats just cant handle it.
First impressions: less numbers and graphs, more write ups. Less alarmist, but bogey man RCP 8.5 is kept to scare the children and to feed liable politicians.
Useless chapter division by continents: Asia runs from the north pole till the southern tropics. At least they had to admit that India is not going to get less rainfall, so one scare story less. Coral bleaching has stopped a decade ago: not due to human influence alas, so you won’t read about it next report.
I have a question.
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5.
In this paragraph, which was also in the overall summary I believe, what does ‘relative to 1850 to 1900’ mean?
If it means ‘since’, well we have already had 0.8C of warming in the 20th century. So we get another 0.7C of warming this century in RCP2.6. Is that right? And ‘scary figure minus 0.8 to make it not scary at all’ for the other ‘scenarios’.
If so, it seems that warming continues pretty much as it has for the last 100-150 years, with no increase due to extra ‘carbon’.
I can’t believe they meant to say that, so have I read it wrong?
If not, why on earth is anyone worried about the same rise this century as the last? We seemed to cope fine, whilst increasing and feeding the population massively.
Human influence on the climate is clear because of the following evidence:
1. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
2. Positive radiative forcing
3. Observed warming
4. Understanding of the Climate System
None of the above “evidence” points directly to human influence on the climate. Besides, what warming have they “observed” over the past decade and a half? And how can they claim an “understanding of the Climate System” when their forecasts are so wrong. They are continually revising what they know about the climate, which means they know very little. If they really did have an understanding, they would have predicted the “pause” AND when it will end. Instead, they predict what they think will happen by “the end of the 21st century.” That is such a cop-out. The accuracy for such predictions doesn’t matter because they’ll all be dead by then!
Not surprisingly NBC news is all in too, by way of Borenstein’s article:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/massive-u-n-report-says-climate-risks-go-beyond-red-n67516
Note the picture that accompanies the article. Ugh(2).
I agree with almost everything stated in the report. (Yawn.)
However, what is in the report is actually quite reassuring. Read the actual words. They are complete ho-hum presented as apocalypse now.
It looks like we may be about to get another El Nino; assuming that happens just watch all the alarmists bleat “Told you so, this is just what the IPCC predicted”, as the global temperature temporarily rises circa 0.4 degrees C.
As for the report itself, its conclusions were utterly predictable and solely designed to keep gullible politicians funding the bloated Global Warming Industry.
There are reports in the UK that one of Davey’s minions was sent with a note to WGII complaining that the economic forecasts weren’t doom-laden enough. A clear case of bringing pressure to bear for “sexing up” the Policymaker’s summary. I have high confidence that Davey will not be the only Western Environment Minister who has brought undue pressure to bear on scientific opinion.
When you consider that China, India and the G 88 will continue to ignore what they see as neo-colonialist and racist attempts by the affluent West to prevent the modernisation of their own cultures, then what is the point of this report? Not the least of the warmist politico’s concerns will be that once their electorates realise how they have been despoiled for no reason, reaction will be savage and their political careers will be in ruins.
One is left with the conclusion that this report, purporting to be of global significance, will be used for picayune party-political purposes by the predominantly left-wing governments of the West.
It will certainly not have any material effect upon CO2 emissions, but will continue to beggar the first world.
I look forward with great anticipation and a giant bag of popcorn to the debunking of WGII by those who have far greater detailed knowledge that I. Let the Farce commence!
From the report:
“Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.”
If by “carbon” they mean CO2, then this contradicts the earlier statement that the oceans are warming.
Warm water holds LESS CO2 than colder water.
Water leaches out CO2 as it warms. It does not take in more.
“… and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.” Likely due to industrial activities, SUVs and air traffic, I guess.
“The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia”
Since the mid 19th century is 100 years before the increase in CO2, doesn’t this contradict the AGW hypothesis?
When the IPCC alarmists say ‘As the temperature continues to rise….’ they mean the temperatures on their simulations. In thereal world the temperature isn’t rising.
Had the IPCC ‘consciously uncoupled’ from reality?
Magma says:
March 30, 2014 at 6:56 pm
My, what fast readers commenters here are. I’d be impressed, if I actually thought many of you had bothered read a single page….
———————————————————————————————————————-
You do have a point, Magma, but (as evanmjones) points out, even the summary of the summary posted above doesn’t suggest much reason to be alarmed if you actually think for a second or two about what’s written. A few pointers to get you started:
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
The fact they’re still relying on this fallacious “previous decade warmer than…” argument as evidence of continued warming is, frankly, a little bit mindblowing. I’m sure i don’t need to explain to you (again) just why it’s a meaniingless point?
Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence).
Why “the last two decades”? Isn’t anything less than 30 years meaningless in terms of climate? I’m sure I’ve been told that rpeatedly by warmstas! I don’t care if “that’s all the data we’ve got” – if it’s less than 30 years it’s a short term variation according to their own rules. Remember,, for at least 17 of those 20 years there’s been no warming, but that apparently counts for nothing
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia
(high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m.
Some curious period-picking here. They fnd higher sea level rise since the “mid 19th century” – about 100 years before the 60 years or so that we’re meant to have had any real impact. Why???
Then they announce 0.19m (that’s less than 2/3rds of a classroom ruler – you couldn’t even bodyboard on a wave that low!) between 1901 and 2010. To even get that tiny rise they have to use 109 years rather than 100 (which is what they deal in for projections). 19cm over 109 years is about 17.5cm over a century – why not announce it like that seeing as they project interms of centuries?
I’ll leave you to think about the rest of the headlines because I have far better things to do today than act as a surrogate brain while yours is on vacation. The underlying point is that it doesn’t matter how many pages you read if you don’t also think critically about what’s written.
.
How much ocean warming would be needed to create the Keeling curve?
The IPCC and obviously many of its puerile contributing ‘scientists’ are becoming more and more like small children in a temper tantrum. The more the evidence is not there, the more they stamp their feet and shout louder. It is absolutely pathetic.
This is an old political strategy: repeat a big lie, repeat it often, repeat it with even more urgency, finally SHOUT IT TO THE MOUNTAINTOPS!!!! The more you repeat it, with sincerity, urgency, and with more urgency, then people will believe it.
Shout to Germans that the Reichstag fire was due to Communist perfidy. Shout to Russians that there were plotters against Stalin’s regime, that most of them were generals, doctors, and Jews. Shout to the world that Poland had committed atrocities on Germany’s border, justifying a world-war-starting invasion. Shout to the world that a video had provoked an attack on an American consulate in Benghazi. Shout to Americans that you will not lose your doctor or your health care plan, and that health care costs will go down due to Obamacare.
So the IPCC’s diatribe is nothing new. It is designed to expand the power of those who engage in UN/NGO/Socialist bureaucracies around the world.